uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
My guess is she wouldn't thank you for involving her.
Which is somewhat detrimental to your information-acquisition quest...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Whaddya know? Maybe we do have something in common.
Obviously. That's the human condition.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Yeah, but we can't demonstrate it.
Sure, but the limits of the scientific method are not the limits of epistemology.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
That'll be the reality we don't understand.
And that very limit (of language) is also the limit of (communicable) understanding.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
We don't know that until it is demonstrated. It doesn't follow from the fact that we don't know a theory is true, that it isn't true.
It very much depends on your conception of "truth".
If truth has the properties of "consistency" and "completeness", then it cannot be expressed in language.
The limits of language are the limits of (communicable) understanding.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Because we don't yet have a model that can do both. Although I grant that even if we did, it would be underdetermined.
Wrong. If we had a model that could do both, a model that is universally applicable with no considerations of "operating parameters" (e.g domain of applicability), a model from which you can derive both QFT and GR - it implies
superdeterminism!
All sorts of spooky shit and time-paradoxes begin to happen if we could perfectly-predict the future (but lets worry about it when we get there?).
Here's some reading you might find interesting:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/1 ... -take.html
Or the paper the blog post introduces:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
If those are the only options, I'll go for Oracle Machine.
Why? Does the God-language trigger you? "God" and "Oracle Machines" are isomorphic. Functionally equivalent. Synonymous. Two words for the same concept.
Perhaps it's prudent to choose your language for your audience after all? I probably can't explain God (e.g Oracle Machines) to my grandmother...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Or don't rely on mathematical models to "describe reality".
That's a great idea! You must have a better instrument then? One compatible with structuralism?
If you don't - the limits of Mathematics/Language are the limits of your understanding...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
So why do it?
You tell me? You constantly pick fights with theists, rather than defaulting to a charitable interpretation of seemingly bad ideas.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Yeah, but I didn't apply it to you.
It would've been much simpler to just call me stupid. I would've agreed.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Who used or mentioned "brilliance"?
Nobody in this conversation? It's was an adage I was expressing.
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Indeed I do, but neither of those two interpret "everyone is a sinner" as "Nobody is perfect".
Methinks you are going a little too far (and way beyond the principle of charity) to be making any claims about people's interpretations...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
Well, to be charitable I might suppose that it's chicken and egg. Frankly though, I doubt your being a twat is anything to do with me.
And you would be 100% correct. Me being a twat has nothing to do with you. But it may have something to do with your behaviour...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:36 pm
I very much doubt that would be anything you will ever be in a position to provide, but fuck it, yeah, show me the receipt.
And you would be right, receipts are risk to anonimity. But when the book arrives, I am happy to oblige a
zero-knowledge proof of sorts.